Mueller, (((Cohen)))... impeachment? So what?!

Agent 17 and others have asked me how I can still support President Trump in light (shade?) of all the dirt that's being dug up and passed around for examination -- much as one might inspect one's stool, looking for cancerous cells -- these days. Why (he says) have I not written about the latest rumours, suggestions and innuendos? Well frankly... MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over. All these hearings and investigations have been going on since the day Mr Trump was sworn in -- make that since 9 November 2016 -- and so far they have result in nothing. Nada. Bupkis. I saw: so what?

Take yesterday's appearance before the House Oversight Committee of convicted felon and admitted liar (((Michael Cohen))). Mr Cohen used to be Mr Trump's attorney. Everybody knows that if you want to succeed in business and/or politics, you have to have a smart Jewish lawyer -- like NHL Pres. (((Gary Bettman))) -- fighting your corner. His job was to do whatever it took to advance Mr Trump's projects, like building hotels or winning the presidensity. So what?

Mr Cohen called POTUS a liar (Takes one to know one!), a conman, a cheat and a racist. So what? Has there ever been a president who wasn't some or all of the above? Jefferson and Lincoln were racists! And then there was Slick Willy Clinton. So what?

Mr Cohen presented to the Committee what he characterized as damning evidence that President Trump had paid him some money -- two checks totalling $70,000, one signed by Junior and one by The Donald hisself. So what? It's not illegal, or even unusual, for someone to pay money to his lawyer. The sums in question might have been for legal fees... services rendered... for all we know. But Mr Cohen insists he was being reimbursed for "hush money" he had paid to Stormy Daniels, pictured. [See anything ya like, boyz? Ed.] Again, so what?

The fuss being made about Mr Trump's relationship, whatever it was, with Ms Daniels, amazes me. Suppose he boinked her? So what? I can't think of any country except the puritanical, holier-than-thou Excited States of America in which a politician's amorous adventures would draw such sanctimonious tut-tutting, let alone a Congressional investigation. If it had been Macron, the French would have given him a fucking medal! Why is this a big deal just because The Donald does it? What about Slick Willy (again)? And even the sainted JFK had his moment(s) with unsainted Marilyn Monroe.

But (the Democrats and lamestream media say) that's not the issue. The issue (they say) is that Mr Trump's signature on a check [using the American spelling here becausae it's an American check. Ed.] would appear to support the allegation that he was involved in an illegal campaign contribution. The unreported payment to Daniels far exceeded the $2700 maximum for an individual in a general election. So buying Ms Daniel's silence is a possible campaign finance violation... dontcha see?!

Sorry but no, I don't see. The checks are dated 2017. Didn't the campaign end on 8 November 2016? Or are they saying that the funds came from the war chest that the Committee to Re-elect Donald Trump is building for 2020? How do we even know the money came from campaign funds and not from some other funds, of which Mr Trump has considerable?

Suspending disbelief for another two minutes, let me ask where all this is going? (((Brian Klaas))), a political scientist at the University College London and dedicated anti-trumper -- author of The Despot's Apprentice: Donald Trump's Attack on Democracy -- tole the meeja yesterday that Mr Cohen's testimony will intensify calls for Trump's impeachment, and pressure Democrats still hesitant about that idea to get on with it. Mr Klaas's wish is surely father to his thought, but it's not as if we haven't heard all this before.

The key phrase there is "Democrats still hesitant about that idea". Mr Klaas and the usual gang of liberals, JWBs, NPCs and meeja stars seem to be equating a vote to impeach the President of the United States with "justice"... or punishmen, or revenge, whatever. Give Trump his just desserts, they cry. But they fail to understand that impeachment is not a verdict and/or sentence. It is a process by which the House brings charges against the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors" alleged to have been committed. The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held.

Next, the Senate tries the accused. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. To convict the accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" is required. With Republicans holding a slim majority in the Senate, it would be a cold day in hell before two-thirds of the solons would vote to convict a Republican president. But then, and only then, would Mr Trump be removed from office.

Then and only then could Mr Trump be indicted for whatever crimes the Department of Justice or Robert Mueller think he may have committed. DoJ guidelines provide that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And the statute of limitations on most federal offences, including campaign finance violations, is five (5) years. Without an indictment within that timeframe, the alleged crimes are no longer prosecutable.

That means that all President Trump has to do to avoid prosescution is win the 2020 election! He may be impeached before then, but my guess is that impeachment, which has every appearance of being a Democrat vendetta against a man they still can't believe won, will only rally the troops and strengthen Mr Trumps support not just in the Senate but amongst the voters across the land. Impeachment would, IMHO, make POTUS's re-election in 2020 a certainty. (Lifetime pct .992.) And that, dear readers, iw why the Democrats are "hesitant about that idea".